# C_2018341EN.01002101.xml

| 24.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/21

---

Action brought on 11 July 2018 — Bizbike and Hartmobile v Commission

(Case T-426/18)

(2018/C 341/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Bizbike (Wielsbeke, Netherlands), Hartmobile BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible;

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/671 of 2 May 2018 making imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (1) on the grounds set out in the application; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/671 of 2 May 2018 making imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (1) on the grounds set out in the application; and

| — | order the European Commission and any interveners to pay legal costs and expenses of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission and any interveners to pay legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the existence of the manifest error of assessment of facts and law resulting in the infringement of Article 10(4)(c) of Regulation 2016/1036 (2) and specifically the of requirement of establishing a sufficient degree of importers’ knowledge or awareness of dumping and injury sustained by the Union industry for the purposes of imposing registration of imports. |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation in the application of Article 10(4)(c) of Regulation 2016/1036 were breached.
  The applicants claim that Regulation 2018/671 would breach the principle of legal certainty by imputing deemed awareness of the alleged existence of dumping and injury on the part of the applicants and attributing knowledge of a factual situation to them before any legal measure was adopted.
  Regulation 2018/671 would also breach the principle of legitimate expectations by developing an interpretation of deemed awareness in Regulation 2018/671 that would have rendered the exceptional character of, and requirements for, the process of registration of imports ineffective. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants claim that Regulation 2018/671 would breach the principle of legal certainty by imputing deemed awareness of the alleged existence of dumping and injury on the part of the applicants and attributing knowledge of a factual situation to them before any legal measure was adopted.

Regulation 2018/671 would also breach the principle of legitimate expectations by developing an interpretation of deemed awareness in Regulation 2018/671 that would have rendered the exceptional character of, and requirements for, the process of registration of imports ineffective.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the manifest error in fact and law resulted in a breach of Article 10(4)(d) of Regulation 2016/1036 and Article 16(4)(d) of Regulation 2016/1037 (3) by failing to evaluate all the relevant evidence relating to the relevant economic factors affecting the performance of the Union industry to establish injury and a causal link with imports of the product concerned. |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicants’ rights of defence were violated by failing to provide prompt and timeous access to key submissions lodged by the complainants to the detriment of the applicants’ ability to properly and effectively rebut the complainants’ allegations concerning satisfaction of the legal requirements for registration of imports to be imposed. |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the sufficient reasoning to motivate key findings in Regulation 2018/671 was absent to justify registration of imports and more specifically to provide adequate reasoning as to why allegedly additional injury would be caused by a continued rise in imports from the People’s Republic of China at allegedly decreasing prices without taking sufficiently into account the submissions by the applicants to the contrary. |
| --- | --- |

5.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/671 of 2 May 2018 making imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ L 113, 3.5.2018, p. 4).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21).

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55)

---